ArticleStem cells translational medicine2025
Comparative analysis of scaffold-free tissue-engineered cartilage derived from different seed cells: in vitro and in vivo studies.
Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe development of cartilage tissue engineering offers a promising strategy for effective cartilage regeneration. This study aims to synthesize scaffold-free tissue-engineered cartilage (TEC) using articular chondrocytes (ACs), costal chondrocytes (CCs), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs), and synovial-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (SDSCs) as seed cells, comparing their cartilage matrix production in vitro and repair capabilities in vivo to guide seed cell selection.
methodsACs, CCs, BMSCs, and SDSCs were seeded at high density (4.0 × 105 cells/cm2) in 24-well plates with 0.2 mM Ascorbate 2-phosphate and cultured to form scaffold-free TEC. In vitro, we performed real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), biological analyses, and histochemical staining to assess structural characteristics and cartilage-related gene expression. In vivo, a rat model of knee cartilage defect was used to evaluate tissue repair capabilities, followed by histological assessments and statistical analysis.
resultsIn vitro, ACs and CCs showed significantly higher GAG/DNA ratios, with CCs exhibiting the highest chondrogenic gene expression. Histological analysis revealed AC and CC TECs were positive for Safranin-O, Alcian blue, and Col2 staining. In vivo, CC-derived TEC maintained a uniform distribution of Col2, while BMSCs and SDSCs primarily showed Col1 distribution, demonstrating better integration with cartilage and in situ differentiation by 12 weeks.
conclusionACs and CCs excelled in cartilage matrix synthesis; however, AC TEC exhibited phenotypic instability. CC TEC sustained a hyaline chondrocyte phenotype but had later connectivity issues, while BMSCs and SDSCs integrated better but primarily produced fibrous tissue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.